Is Global Greens left wing or right wing?

On economic organisation Global Greens scores −05 on a scale from −10 (common ownership) to +10 (private property and markets). On social and cultural order it scores −09. A single left–right figure combines these and four further measurements that move independently, which is why the atlas reports six.

Is Global Greens authoritarian?

On the organisation of power, which measures whether authority is dispersed among institutions that can stop each other or concentrated in a single centre, Global Greens scores −06. Proportional representation, citizens' assemblies, devolution alongside binding international agreements.

Atlas / Organisations / Global Greens

Global Greens

2001– · Worldwide · Green · Electoral party · coding confidence high

−05ECcollective

−09CUpluralist

−06AUpluralist

00SCbalanced

−08IDuniversal

−04CHlawful

Each axis runs from −10 to +10, with zero a genuine mixed or balanced position rather than an absence of opinion. A score describes a stated position and a governing record; it is not a judgement of merit. What each score means →

Core principles

Ecological wisdom, social justice, participatory democracy, non-violence, sustainability, respect for diversity.

Economic model

Carbon pricing and regulation, public investment, opposition to growth-first policy, redistribution.

Organisation of powers

Proportional representation, citizens' assemblies, devolution alongside binding international agreements.

Reading note

The party family whose position is least well described by any economic-only measure.

Check a claim about Global Greens. The interactive atlas measures the distance between any two organisations across all six axes and shows which ones carry the disagreement.

Open in the atlas

The evidence for every score

All six cells are sourced. A rationale explains what the score is measuring and each artefact is something a third party can check without taking anyone's word for it.

EC · Economic organisation · scored −05

Coded −5: ecological regulation and public investment rather than public ownership.

Programme textThe 2001 Charter commits to markets constrained by ecological limits rather than to their abolition.

CU · Social and cultural order · scored −09

Coded −9: respect for diversity is one of the six founding principles.

Programme textThe Charter commits to gender equity, indigenous rights and cultural diversity as core rather than adjacent.

AU · Organisation of power · scored −06

Coded strongly negative: rotation, mandates and referenda were founding organisational commitments, not later additions.

Programme textThe 2001 Global Greens Charter names participatory democracy as one of six principles.
Documented act or statuteDie Grünen operated office rotation and imperative mandates in its early parliamentary practice.

SC · Scale of decision · scored 00

Coded at zero: subsidiarity combined with binding international environmental agreement.

Programme textThe Charter commits simultaneously to local self-determination and to enforceable global governance on ecology.

ID · Rule of membership · scored −08

Coded −8: explicit commitments on refugees and on the rights of non-citizens.

Programme textThe Charter commits to the rights of migrants and refugees as a founding principle.

CH · Method and tempo · scored −04

Coded −4: non-violence is one of the six principles.

Programme textNon-violence is named in the Charter as a method binding on member parties.

Nearest organisations by measured distance

Straight-line separation across all six axes, out of a maximum of 49.0. Proximity means similarity of stated position, not endorsement and not resemblance in outcome.

Cite this page

Scores are revised on evidence, so a citation should carry the version it refers to. Version 4.3.1 is current; the revision log records every change.

McGrath, K. (2026). Global Greens. The Political Atlas, version 4.2. https://thepoliticalatlas.com/organisations/globalgreens/ (accessed 2026-08-01).

Free to quote and reproduce with attribution. This is a synthesis rather than a peer-reviewed dataset — where an authoritative figure is needed, cite the Chapel Hill Expert Survey, the Manifesto Project or V-Dem.